1. I would agree, but I try and avoid being moderated by the sf staff. Thanks for the jew reference though.

Why is this a better solution to the problem than simply removing the Jews? For instance, would it not be beneficial to seperate rather than destroy them, if only for their considerable input to the arts and sciences?

Quote:

2. I was referring to my overall efforts not to one specific instance. Throw the whole system away, start with something new.

But some of the original system need not be discarded.

Quote:

Ask for my opinion regarding a specific issue and I will not hide behind the words' well there is no simple answer and all factors must be taken into account before a decision can be made'. If it is a social science issue, I am pretty confident I have an opinion if not a prepared solution. Unlike you I prefer to tackle problems head on.

I just understand the concept of realistic adaptability. I do not ignore the failures in my own ideas, any more than I ignore the problems with yours. All things considered, the only sensible position is this; in the long-run, all systems that refuse to adapt to circumstance will fail, and, indeed, so will many/most that do.

Quote:

3. I know, some people are resolved to live in ignorance. I am reminded of the 28% of americans who still suport bush.

Quite.

Quote:

As for what the inhabitants of sf think of you, just wanted you to know that I was a relative moderate. I left the guy's name out so as not to enflame individual passions.

Honestly unnecessary. I am aware of the current state of this forum, and would be highly unlikely to persue a personal vendetta against someone who behaves like a schoolgirl.

Quote:

Again if my solutions are insufficent for you, feel free to posit something yourself. Of course you will answer 'you have not offered any solutions worth mentioning'. That is okay. I am beginning to enjoy these little tussles.
I had worried at first that you were more learned about matters and were just being coy about sharing information due to fear of being shouted down. Now I see you have no real information to share and delight in causing dissent.

That is okay as well.

I understand that what you want from me is basically either a pat on the back, or some inferior ideology that will, by comparison, make yours look grand. I have no intention of providing these, since, while I do not pretend to have answers to the worlds problems, I do have insight and understanding keen enough to see the flaws in yours.

I have knowledge and opinions that I am happy to share, but I'm not going to play ideologue on the internet just for the sake of doing so.

Quote:

Lastly in regard to what you consider honorable:Self-sacrifice, obedience and courage.

Partially sufficent for the individual. Inconclusive for society.

In what sense are these traits 'insufficient for society'. Any community composed of courageous, selfless individuals is healthy indeed.

I think it is historically correct to say that Libertarianism had its origin in the writings of Ayn Rand, writings that express the most extreme doctrine of selfishness and laizzes-faire available.

Between the extremes of totalitarianism and laizzes-faire, fascism IS the balance, although, specifically, the program of the Italian Fascist Party was taylored to Italy's particular needs at the time.

Between the extremes of totalitarianism and laizzes-faire, fascism IS the balance, although, specifically, the program of the Italian Fascist Party was taylored to Italy's particular needs at the time.

I understand that what you want from me is basically either a pat on the back, or some inferior ideology that will, by comparison, make yours look grand. I have no intention of providing these, since, while I do not pretend to have answers to the worlds problems, I do have insight and understanding keen enough to see the flaws in yours.

I have knowledge and opinions that I am happy to share, but I'm not going to play ideologue on the internet just for the sake of doing so.

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt

Whenever one thinks there is a superior response, someone has always said it better in the past.

Why is this a better solution to the problem than simply removing the Jews? For instance, would it not be beneficial to seperate rather than destroy them, if only for their considerable input to the arts and sciences?

Originally by Deitrich Eckart
"The truth," he said, "is, indeed, as you once wrote: one can only understand the Jew when one knows what his ultimate goal is. And that goal is, beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world. He must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so. But one sees, if only in the means which he employs, that he is secretly driven to something else. While he pretends to himself to be elevating mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If a halt is not ordered, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself. There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred. To be obliged to try and annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to suspect that that must lead inevitably to his own ruin -- therein lies, if you will, the tragedy of Lucifer."

No, do not twist my words in that manner. Secondly, please be reasonable; the fact that an individual seeks to restrict certain freedoms does not instantly make them a white "racialist" as you may deem. George does not have such an intent and thus is not one of us. I had thought you smarter than this.

My apologies for thinking you might understand sarcasm. I even connoted it with the little smiley, but maybe I should label it better in the future.

Quote:

You're thinking of Communism, not National Socialism. Communism is the ideology that strangles the development of creative individuals and innovators within society because there is no need to do so, we're all "Equal." However, in National Socialism,

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Quote:

Hitler makes it quite clear that he supports the development of these "creative forces/factors," and that they should be used for the overall benefit of the race. [blah, blah, blah]

Yeah, Mao wrote the same glib crap in his "little red book." All despots write flowery prose about greatness and freedom and overall benefit and common good and all that jazz. It's probably in the despot's handbook somewhere. You write a manifesto saying what a wonderful man you are and how much you just want to help the people, then you take power and murder millions of them, spy on the rest, and start wars. I must here insert the old adage about broken clocks displaying the correct time twice daily. Despots do not tell people what they are actually planning to do, because no one would buy into it.

Quote:

Does this mean that if the common good were to be identified as the improvement of the race, that it should not be adhered to. Is it not an honourable concept worth sacrificing much for?

It certainly should be adhered to, but not at the expense of living in a nightmare world a la 1984 or any other dystopia. If the "common good of the race" means implanting microchips in everyone, requiring all children to attend government propaganda mills for indoctrination, and being imprisoned or executed for voicing the "wrong" ideas, I'm not interested. That's not your idea of the brilliant White future, I'm sure, blah blah blah, but that's what happens when governments have too much power. Read your history -- it's all there.

Quote:

Having a society with no concept or form of control is absolutely ludicrous. While I'm enjoying my absolute freedom, I'm going to get high on crystal meth., smoke some marijuana, drink some beer, get in my car with a sawed-off shotgun, go over to your house because last year you got promoted through your superior wit and working talent while I was fired because I was a jackass, then murder your entire family and leave. Don't you just love freedom. A society without rules, responsibilities or duties is one of decadence and condemned to destruction.

Ahh, the age-old Ultimate Straw Man. We already have people who smoke dope, use meth, drive drunk, and shoot people. As it stands now, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE ALREADY F***ING ILLEGAL.

Should I repeat that for clarity? Or just rephrase? To wit: laws do not stop stupid human behavior. End of sentence, full stop.

On the other hand, back in the day when anyone could legally grow marijuana (prior to 1937), no one cared when you drove your horse-drawn wagon while blitzed, and you could own the same guns as the Army -- and did -- how was our crime rate? I'll tell you, just in case you didn't know. It was lower. Much lower. Compared to today, nonexistent.

While this is a gross oversimplification, simple logic would suggest that laws CAUSE crime, and freedom causes responsibility. Will you dare suggest that laws cause personal responsibility and moral behavior?

Quote:

Indeed, and the state should not be there to restrict the freedoms, but simply reallocate them to a more progressive and useful route for the development of the people, that is the purpose of the state.

"Reallocate freedom?" Could you please explain that? I am not fluent in Newspeak.

Last edited by TaranWanderer; 06-18-2007 at 01:34 AM.
Reason: Clarification